I never stated the axe came out of his arm. Given, I didn't differentiate, but I figured anyone who'd seen the movie would know themselves.

He did have gear in his trailer, which he had recovered by that point and was where he got the fly-tech from (off-screen). But regardless, we never see the axe on him until he pulls it out of nowhere from his back once he faces off against Sentinel Prime. As such, we can establish that he has access to it in the finale of the film.

And we know he didn't go back to his trailer set up for more tech a second time how? We know he has access to the axe while the jet pack is still on how? Honestly he could have had two blades, it really doesn't matter. I mean in the perfect world, the first reaction to the scenario presented is to put the pieces together. In the modern (forum) world it's nothing of the sort.

The same thing happened When Singer pretty much made the effects of Kryptonite a plot device. Nerd rage was all about calling bs on what they were seeing whilst the general audience was simply accepting that that was how Kryptonite worked in singers movie. If Optimus couldn't cut himself down, why not accept that he couldn't cut himself down? Honestly. Ask yourself, what makes more sense, that he couldn't or that he forget about his trusty go to weapon.

If batman was tangled in his own bungie lines, upside down and in chicago, I'd be right there saying the same thing to people who would scream plot hole, for batman has tons of cutting equipment in his belt.

Michael Bay has this effect.

Quote:

Optimus is not how he's always been. The Autobots in the third movie are laugh-out-loud idiots, though I'll make an exception to that statement in the case of Bumblebee, who still comes off as deadly. Optimus only shines when he auto-kills Megatron at the end, like something out of Dragon Ball Z where the hero finally wins the battle because he's supposed to. Anywhere else in the movie, Prime and the Autobots (again, with the exception of Bumblebee) are ineffective and inept in battle when compared to the first - notably Ironhide and Ratchet warding off Starscream and the attack against whoever Decepticon-Tank was, and Prime vs. Bonecrusher and Megatron - and even the second movie - where Prime shined in general, and the rest of the Autobots were involved in the big siege at the end.

Which auto bots are laugh out loud idiots, all I remember of them is killing machines, especially in the last movie.

As for their battle with star scream, he tends to have the advantage...for obvious reasons. I love the part when Iron hide warns everyone of his arrival.

Quote:

I have no gripe with Prime being evenly-matched or over-matched, as was the case in different situations in the first two movies. My gripe comes from him and the Autobots being ineffective and inept to the point of both being accurate character descriptors in the case of the third movie. My other gripe is we have no way of knowing or understanding as a viewing audience that Sentinel Prime is supposed to be more powerful than Optimus, and the only action we see of him prior to the finale is a surprise attack on Ironhide with acid rounds or some unexplained whatever, and then a big temper-tantrum on the Nest hangar.

Outside of the clear showing and not telling Sentinel gave the audience in just about all of their scenes together. Bay even staged their civil scenes in such a why that Sentinel was the clear power holder of the scene.

Again, outside of the house scene in the first, I've personally only ever seen the autos as decent to great fighters. Especially Ironhide.

Quote:

Seriously, how is it hard to see the difference between that and the instances we have in the first two movies? There's a difference between ineffective/inept and over-matched. Megatron is built as a legitimate threat and recognized by the Autobots with fear by the time he's flying around in the first movie. Come the second movie, when Prime is over-matched he's fighting off three enemies simultaneously.

Optimus put on a better showing, the second time. it's as simple as that.
Moreover the terrain wasn't littered with innocent people,
Moreover he was past trying to reason with Megatron at that point in their character journey.
Moreover he had alot more conviction in that particular conflict.

fighting tends to work on these principles.

Again, why not put the pieces together as opposed to trying to find holes.

Quote:

And please, get off your high-horse thinking it's all about Bay. I don't give a rat's *** about Bay. The first movie is a fine film, which he directed.

That's interesting, I wonder if you speak for everyone round these parts.
I ride a mule thank you very much.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

that is pretty interesting.
not as interesting as questioning the happenings of megatrons plotting in beastwars.
(source material is sacred though)

I like the part where it says: "neither of these plans work if the preceding one succeeds."
Yea that's kinda how contingencies usually go down.

Quote:

Also, the entire setup of the movie is heavily flawed.

1) We, the USA, have NEVER landed on the "Dark Side" of the Moon. The time of radio silence is when the orbiter is circling the far side of the Moon. EVERY landing from the US and other nations (manned and unmanned) have been on the "front side" of the moon.
Why? Communication. We don't have geosync satellites around the moon that would allow for constant communication no matter the location. To argue they could have lifted out and re-landed on the moon is beyond preposterous.

At what point during the whole space race was motivated by the ark landing did you start questioning how accurate the lunar landing facts would be...I guess never.

Marvel universe (which TF was part of at some point) is only about 3x as revisionist as Hasbro's, which is 2x as revisionist as ours. Nazi's didn't have laser powered canons in world war 2 by the by.

Quote:

Bay is terrible when it comes to actual space travel. He tremendously screwed the pooch on Armageddon (Space Shuttle taking off like a plan on the asteroid??!?!?!) and has done so again here.

aha...eh....eh.
just a matter of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colossal Spoons

I think Micheal Bay himself might be posting in this forum. I've never seen a film defended with such tenacity.

I gotta admit, at this point I just do it for the lol's.
it's fun. It probably would have been more fun if the movie bombed like some were hoping though.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

At what point during the whole space race was motivated by the ark landing did you start questioning how accurate the lunar landing facts would be...I guess never.

Not at all. If instead of the Dark Side of the moon we went to a deep crater or somewhere NEAR where we did actually explore I wouldn't be so up in arms about it. But the fact is we could not have possibly gone to that side of the moon on the landing. It could have been any director or writer making the same mistake and I'd be calling BS. That part would have stuck out like a sore thumb and made me ill. Yes, I knew that going into the movie, I was hoping it would have been the worst mistake, sadly I was wrong.

Armageddon was much worse in this particular area. The shuttle lifting off from the asteroid is laughable. Both cases show me laziness or just not caring for what is physically possible with our technology (and we have big giant transforming robots, I know). It seems like the writers and directors went with the easiest tools they had and didn't try to make something a bit more believable to those that know better.

It's not picking on Bay, I'd rip apart any director with the same lazy plot. I hated a number of scenes from the new Star Trek that fell in the same category (Space Jump, wtf!?! and jettisoning the core into the time rift ). The Star Trek ones I forgive because the story and writing around them prop them up.

Well the underlying problem is that you can't have both storylines (Revenge of the Fallen and the Dark of the Moon) in the same universe. The fact that they got the wrong side of the moon is funny though.

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

Personally I think a movie about a shuttle landing on the moon collecting samples and trying to get back to earth is more creatively lazy than a revisionist history with 80's kids properties to boot. However well done it is.

It's an interesting dilemma the responsibility a filmmaker has to follow rules when dealing with pure sci-fi, or anything for that matter. Should these same rules apply to fantasy as well, like LotR or Potter...which one of those is just lazy for not following the magic logic and would they be better for it, because as it stands they just do whatever the hell they want and "to hell with anyone else." It's a doozy.
The minute it's not fantasy it does seem to have an effect on some people. dr Degrasse Tyson wont shut up about it.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

Personally I think a movie about a shuttle landing on the moon collecting samples and trying to get back to earth is more creatively lazy than a revisionist history with 80's kids properties to boot. However well done it is.

It's an interesting dilemma the responsibility a filmmaker has to follow rules when dealing with pure sci-fi, or anything for that matter. Should these same rules apply to fantasy as well, like LotR or Potter...which one of those is just lazy for not following the magic logic and would they be better for it, because as it stands they just do whatever the hell they want and "to hell with anyone else." It's a doozy.
The minute it's not fantasy it does seem to have an effect on some people. dr Degrasse Tyson wont shut up about it.

Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

When it's science fiction, any number of outlandish things can be made up (Star Trek, Spider-Man, etc...) and we as the audience accept the logic of the situation as long as the story, from that point abides by it's own set of logic and doesn't deviate. War of the Worlds comes to mind, where all electronic devices were knocked out by an EMP but somehow someone got video footage of an alien transporting to it's craft underground. So the movie wasn't following it's own logic it had previously set up. I thought the movie was OK otherwise and things like that are generally nitpicks.

In movies that are based in our world that purport to abide to our laws of physics and science, with no supernatural or outlandish points or elements in the story, the suspension of disbelief still stands but it becomes more apparent when the movie pushes the boundaries (apparently ships lifting off from asteroids) I haven't seen Armageddon in like 11 years, so I don't remember all the inconsistencies or whatnot.

I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.

Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).

My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time? How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?

Quote:

Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.

I loved the first Bad Boys, the second got annoying when the movie could have ended 45 minutes earlier than it did.

Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.

Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.

My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time?

So you can make a fun film about it probably. apply your question to Xmen first class, apply it to watchmen and then conclude with the same point...

Cause you're not making a documentary, you're making an entertaining experience.

Quote:

How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?

Bay and the rest of the people involved, including the people with more say than even he, probably thought it would be cool yea. In hindsight it's a pretty engaging twist.

Quote:

Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.

I'm sure someone out there would argue that all the stuff that happened in that film is bull **** as well...in fact I'm sure of it. But here you are with an opportunity to see the other side.
(the dark side if you will)

Quote:

Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.

Nasa signed off and lent themselves fully to the production(if I recall correctly). They don't do that often...they probably thought it was a fun film for the whole family and left the docu stuff for the ron howard film. I honestly don't think most people are bothered by problems of that nature.

Quote:

Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.

Actually he's one of the few that tries to get more things on point than anyone. It actually annoys a lot of people.

Military operations is a big one.
Real stunts..that bore real film lovers...

Buddy cop movies defy just about every logical pathway of a police procedural, I'm starting to wonder if cops hate them.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.

When it's science fiction, any number of outlandish things can be made up (Star Trek, Spider-Man, etc...) and we as the audience accept the logic of the situation as long as the story, from that point abides by it's own set of logic and doesn't deviate. War of the Worlds comes to mind, where all electronic devices were knocked out by an EMP but somehow someone got video footage of an alien transporting to it's craft underground. So the movie wasn't following it's own logic it had previously set up. I thought the movie was OK otherwise and things like that are generally nitpicks.

In movies that are based in our world that purport to abide to our laws of physics and science, with no supernatural or outlandish points or elements in the story, the suspension of disbelief still stands but it becomes more apparent when the movie pushes the boundaries (apparently ships lifting off from asteroids) I haven't seen Armageddon in like 11 years, so I don't remember all the inconsistencies or whatnot.

That's an obvious theory.
I don't think the TF series has really overstepped it.

the shuttle walking on Armageddon was a nice catch though.
Spiderman getting those powers pretty much spits in that theories face lol.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

So you can make a fun film about it probably. apply your question to Xmen first class, apply it to watchmen and then conclude with the same point...

Cause you're not making a documentary, you're making an entertaining experience.

So a movie can be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining? Gotcha.

X-Men first class changed the whole Cuban Missile crisis. I understood that. I am sure history buffs rolled their eyes. I am sure people who are not intimately involved with the Space Shuttle or Apollo Missions didn't mind the changes to Armageddon and DoTM. I did mind.

Quote:

Bay and the rest of the people involved, including the people with more say than even he, probably thought it would be cool yea. In hindsight it's a pretty engaging twist.

How is it a twist? How much different would it have been if instead of the Dark Side of the Moon, it was a cavern or cave on the front side? Just how different would it have been? None. It would have kept the same story and added a sense a tangibility. Instead of changing history, you add to it.

Quote:

I'm sure someone out there would argue that all the stuff that happened in that film is bull **** as well...in fact I'm sure of it. But here you are with an opportunity to see the other side.
(the dark side if you will)

I am sure, but I stand by above. I know of many directors that do their homework on their films. They try to learn as much as they can about the subject so they don't get called out on BS.

Quote:

Nasa signed off and lent themselves fully to the production(if I recall correctly). They don't do that often...they probably thought it was a fun film for the whole family and left the docu stuff for the ron howard film. I honestly don't think most people are bothered by problems of that nature.

NASA the people making decisions don't speak for the workers who leave and breathe the shuttle or did for the Apollo missions. NASA is now run by bureaucrats and suits with the almighty dollar as the bottom line. I am sure Bay sold them the idea and $$$ was all they saw. I've worked with NASA people. They all say the same thing. "Yeah, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS."

I guess what bothers me is how these inconsistencies seem so...easy to avoid. If someone just sat down and THOUGHT about it for 15 minutes you could get around it or add something to explain it. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but something to show me the director said "You know what, a space shuttle doesn't fly and take off like a giant plane, we need to address that for the get away from the asteroid."

That's an obvious theory.
I don't think the TF series has really overstepped it.

the shuttle walking on Armageddon was a nice catch though.
Spiderman getting those powers pretty much spits in that theories face lol.

Spider-Man is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief. It's a story where we accept that a man gains powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider (for the sake of the story). The comic/movie establishes why and how he gained these abilities and though they are outlandish, they still seem to be treated as though they are within the realm of possibility. That's the key. From that point on, as long as his abilities are treated consistently and abide by the rules they have constructed within the world that has been created for the comic/movie, we as an audience have no problem accepting it.

The problem starts when there is inconsistent or poor storytelling. Someone might act totally out of character or a plot point might be totally nonsensical, but this is not an excuse for suspension of disbelief. The excuse I hear most often is: "It's a movie about a guy who crawls on walls/robots from space/a guy from krypton, how much realism do you expect?"

The problem with this is that when the writer/film maker oversteps the boundaries of absurdity and outlandishness past what they had established, the audience will disengage and take notice of this.

Spider-Man is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief. It's a story where we accept that a man gains powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider (for the sake of the story). The comic/movie establishes why and how he gained these abilities and though they are outlandish, they still seem to be treated as though they are within the realm of possibility. That's the key. From that point on, as long as his abilities are treated consistently and abide by the rules they have constructed within the world that has been created for the comic/movie, we as an audience have no problem accepting it.

The problem starts when there is inconsistent or poor storytelling. Someone might act totally out of character or a plot point might be totally nonsensical, but this is not an excuse for suspension of disbelief. The excuse I hear most often is: "It's a movie about a guy who crawls on walls/robots from space/a guy from krypton, how much realism do you expect?"

The problem with this is that when the writer/film maker oversteps the boundaries of absurdity and outlandishness past what they had established, the audience will disengage and take notice of this.

Again, this is mostly all agreeable believe me, however they already present the world of spiderman as a realistic place and they already show that radiation does what it's supposed to do, the minute he gains powers, they(stan lee) technically changed the rules to his universe.

Obviously the movie kinda change this to a more acceptable genetics landscape and the problem is actually dealt with...it's the source material(and possibly the new movie) I'm poking holes in.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

So a movie can be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining? Gotcha.

ok?

Quote:

X-Men first class changed the whole Cuban Missile crisis. I understood that. I am sure history buffs rolled their eyes. I am sure people who are not intimately involved with the Space Shuttle or Apollo Missions didn't mind the changes to Armageddon and DoTM. I did mind.

You asked what the point was of shoehorning in a historical event into a revisionist plot. I implied that it adds relevance to the story and pointed to xmen and watchmen. I not questioning weather people do or don't have problems with them(i'm sure they do).

Quote:

How is it a twist? How much different would it have been if instead of the Dark Side of the Moon, it was a cavern or cave on the front side? Just how different would it have been? None. It would have kept the same story and added a sense a tangibility. Instead of changing history, you add to it.

How is it a twist? because it changes the story of the moon landing...if that's what your asking.

I'm sure they could have made it a cave, they probably would have had to deal with cries of why no one had seen it for all this time(even with a kids telescope) guess an alien ship sitting just on the other side of our moon was just too appealing (to bay) to pass up. I they just figured their audience wouldn't harp on the logistics. Personally I wouldn't have enjoyed the film any more or less and it probably shows in the revenue.

Quote:

I am sure, but I stand by above. I know of many directors that do their homework on their films. They try to learn as much as they can about the subject so they don't get called out on BS.

Most just have good writers that solve all their issues for them. I do know the few writer directors tend to deal with all issues presented most of the time. Not sure about Quinton T.

Quote:

NASA the people making decisions don't speak for the workers who leave and breathe the shuttle or did for the Apollo missions. NASA is now run by bureaucrats and suits with the almighty dollar as the bottom line. I am sure Bay sold them the idea and $$$ was all they saw. I've worked with NASA people. They all say the same thing. "Yeah, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS."

Again, you must know bay is not alone in all this (selling)... Secondly if I asked someone about a comedy and they said "yea, it was fun, but full of unbelievable BS." I'd roll my eyes deeper than they probably can roll theirs lol.
I personally see action comedies in this vain.

I'm a big fan of hong kong films.
There's actually a nasa feature video about this production floating around.

Quote:

I guess what bothers me is how these inconsistencies seem so...easy to avoid. If someone just sat down and THOUGHT about it for 15 minutes you could get around it or add something to explain it. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but something to show me the director said "You know what, a space shuttle doesn't fly and take off like a giant plane, we need to address that for the get away from the asteroid."

Hey, that's understandable.
You've gotta know that probably did put in about 15mins into solving a bunch of problems that you probably aren't complaining about now though. To suggest that these people don't put any THOUGHT into their work is somewhat obtuse to say the least.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Sorry, should have read "can't be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining"

Quote:

You asked what the point was of shoehorning in a historical event into a revisionist plot. I implied that it adds relevance to the story and pointed to xmen and watchmen. I not questioning weather people do or don't have problems with them(i'm sure they do).

Watchmen was an alternate reality completely and still tried to remain somewhat "realistic" Trust me, the movie (and the comic) had its fair-share of plot holes (Dr Manhattan's creation for one).

I didn't ask why use a historical event, I asked why change it drastically for no real reason? And change to something that couldn't have possibly happened?
If they had told us "Hey, a spaceship crash landed on the moon and we went to investigate" I could buy that. If they added "Landed in a deep crater and is covered by moon rock and debris, making it barely visible by use of telescope" I could believe that.

Saying "It landed on the dark side of the moon, all you know about orbital mechanics, communications with the Apollo mission, etc etc means jack ****" I don't buy it.

Quote:

How is it a twist? because it changes the story of the moon landing...if that's what your asking.

I'm sure they could have made it a cave, they probably would have had to deal with cries of why no one had seen it for all this time(even with a kids telescope) guess an alien ship sitting just on the other side of our moon was just too appealing (to bay) to pass up. I they just figured their audience wouldn't harp on the logistics. Personally I wouldn't have enjoyed the film any more or less and it probably shows in the revenue.

Exactly, so why not do something that makes...sense?

Quote:

Hey, that's understandable.
You've gotta know that probably did put in about 15mins into solving a bunch of problems that you probably aren't complaining about now though. To suggest that these people don't put any THOUGHT into their work is somewhat obtuse to say the least.

I'm sure they do think it through, but how much of their work is then changed by producers and directors? And is it really hard to make things consistent from movie to movie, or hell at least throughout ONE movie?

There's glaring inconsistencies in each of these movies (RotF being the worst). Do they just not care, or are we just that good at pointing them out?

Sorry, should have read "can't be technologically and historically accurate and entertaining"

Watchmen was an alternate reality completely and still tried to remain somewhat "realistic" Trust me, the movie (and the comic) had its fair-share of plot holes (Dr Manhattan's creation for one).

sure and TF3 tried to be "realistic" as well...if you're going to ask why did they do it for TF3 one would answer, the same reason Moore did it with watchmen, because it's interesting and it has an audience. People like revisions, especially of american history. TF1 probably owes a lot of it's appeal to the approach. But like you go on to say in your next stanza, that's not really your issue. I just don't like leaving questions unanswered(plot holes)

Quote:

I didn't ask why use a historical event, I asked why change it drastically for no real reason? And change to something that couldn't have possibly happened?
If they had told us "Hey, a spaceship crash landed on the moon and we went to investigate" I could buy that. If they added "Landed in a deep crater and is covered by moon rock and debris, making it barely visible by use of telescope" I could believe that.

The reason being that it's new, fresh, different and has a tangible hook. That first teaser communicated to the laymen intrinsically what otherwise would have just been another movie about a crash landing and it's subsequent investigation(involving transformers). I assume this dark of the moon concept has never been done before? For good reason I'm sure.

In the film the crash itself is detected by everyone who's looking, but how often has is the far side of the moon actually been walked, let alone seen?(I know some slingshot missions have seen it). But it's pretty much a mythic un-ventured frontier that's so close it's haunting. You ask the point? Well as a producer, making a hasbro movie are you going to use the high concept selling point of the celestial undiscovered land that's a cultural milestone or the lesser ship in a creator angle? Especially when your source material derives from a saturday morning toy commercial from the 80's that only 12 year olds watched even though many say different.

Speilberg didn't make the film with the purpose of having any aerospace lab coats that happen to have some free time on their hands pull out their check list and give the film a passing grade on accuracy. He made it for the same people that gave all the b.s. in his Indy movies the thumbs up. That's literally why, and I hate assuming peoples intentions.

Wasn't there a plot point about the Russians taking photos but never actually visiting themselves? Probably for the same reasons they haven't ever in real history...

Quote:

Saying "It landed on the dark side of the moon, all you know about orbital mechanics, communications with the Apollo mission, etc etc means jack ****" I don't buy it.

I don't by Nolans dream tech in Inception.....many do.

Quote:

Exactly, so why not do something that makes...sense?

1. Because the former concept is a better sell than the latter
2. Because it doesn't matter if it makes technical sense...not when it's fiction.

I take it you've seen Sunshine.

Quote:

I'm sure they do think it through, but how much of their work is then changed by producers and directors? And is it really hard to make things consistent from movie to movie, or hell at least throughout ONE movie?

Alot, but not for lack of you unappreciating their effort...
and it's harder than you think yes.
Just ask Jim Cameron.

Quote:

There's glaring inconsistencies in each of these movies (RotF being the worst). Do they just not care, or are we just that good at pointing them out?

Most movies have inconsistencies, they're usually non issues and when they're not they become cultural discussions for it.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

I don't see us changing our thoughts or opinions on the matter. I can appreciate the TF franchise for what it is. Mindless thoughtless fun. I would love for a bit more thought provoking better written story, but alas that will have to wait IF we ever get another.

Bay does what Bay does, and he makes hundreds of millions while doing it.

Anyone notice how Bay made all the new Autobots into *****? It seems they're always insulting, threatening, or saying something sexual. Prime examples would be the two little bots that Sam keeps as pets and the bots guarding the space shuttle. At least in the first movie, we had Ironhide and Rachet, who seemed to be pretty well rounded.

Most of the complaints here seem just nitpicking but if I'd have to pick a scene it's when Sam and Lennox are swinging on a cable attached to Starscream when he could've just easily kiled them by swatting them against the wall or something.

__________________A few of the Marvel Superheroes are somewhat niche characters that aren't extremely versatile, thus they don't have a lot of longevity potential. For example, Namor is a water guy, Silver Surfer is a space guy, Dr. Strange is a magic guy, and so on.

1. Not showing how the Autobots got captured. One minute Bee was with the humans then in the next hes all of sudden captured with all the other bots. Made zero sense. I dont ask for much with these films but I felt I missed something somewhat important.

2. The most powerful character in the movie gets stopped by wires and needs three Autobots to get him down.

3. Starscream Vs Sam. Scene was not that cool, a waste for Starscream and it went on too long. Should have been an epic bot battle.

Most of the complaints here seem just nitpicking but if I'd have to pick a scene it's when Sam and Lennox are swinging on a cable attached to Starscream when he could've just easily kiled them by swatting them against the wall or something.

...... but yours somehow isn't?

Give me a break. Knit picking would be if we blasted what colored shirt Shia was wearing.